DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner required an election between Species A (drawn to a sound source, e.g., where sound source is a vibration element) and Species B (drawn to an optical fiber, e.g., where the sound source is a light absorber) in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 2/24/2026. The Applicant elected Species A in the response mailed 3/17/2026 and stated that Species A is drawn to Claims 1-7, 11 and 12 (hence, withdrawing claims 8-10). However, it is noted that Claim 6 is drawn to a non-elected species, where the sound source is a light absorber, which directly correlates with the optical fiber of Species B. Therefore, Claim 6 is also drawn to a non-elected species. Therefore, Claims 6 and 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/158582 to Goel et al. (hereinafter, Goel).
Claim 1, Goel discloses a guide wire (guidewire 100) comprising inter alia:
a core shaft (core wire 110);
a coil portion (outer coil 116) that is coupled to a distal end portion of the core shaft (via tip seen in FIG. 3) and that is helically wound around a periphery of the core shaft (helical shape of coil portion seen in FIGS. 1 and 3); and
a sound source (electrical component 324 which according to [0023] may be a transducer or a signal-producing device such as an RF or Bluetooth, or according to [0029] may be a wireless transmitter; the signals produced by RF, Bluetooth or wireless transmitters are oscillations – oscillations through a medium are sound, therefore, electrical component 324 is a “sound source”) that is provided in an inner side of the coil portion (electrical component 324 is within and on an inner side of outer coil 116 as seen in FIG. 3), wherein the coil portion includes an open portion in which an interval of element wires constituting the coil portion itself is larger than that in another portion (see annotated FIG. 3, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Coleman discloses the guide wire according to claim 1, wherein the sound source is provided in an inner side of the open portion (as seen above in annotated FIG. 3, the sound source (e.g., electrical component 324) is provided inside the open portion, therefore, the sound source is provided in an inner side of the open portion).
Regarding Claim 3, Coleman discloses the guide wire according to claim 1, wherein the coil portion has a bent shape that is bent relative to a longitudinal direction of the guide wire (see bent shape boxed in annotated FIG. 3, below), and the open portion is formed in a range toward a rear from the bent portion in the coil portion (as seen below in annotated FIG. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
455
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Coleman discloses the guide wire according to claim 1, comprising wiring that extends along an extending direction of the core shaft, wherein a distal end of the wiring is positioned at the inner side of the coil portion (see distal end of signal wire 628 connected to electric component 324 disposed at the inner (e.g. within) the coil portion), and the wiring supplies energy to the sound source ([0025] “As shown in Figs. 5-6, at least one signal wire 628 (two shown) may be provided for carrying communication and/or power signals to and/or from the electronic component 324. Each signal wire 628 has a distal signal wire portion electrically coupled with the electronic component 324, and a proximal signal wire portion 530 located adjacent the proximal core wire end 112.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Coleman discloses the guide wire according to claim 4, wherein the coil portion has a bent shape that is bent relative to the longitudinal direction of the guide wire (see FIG. 3), and the distal end of the wiring is present rearward of the bent portion in the coil portion (distal portion of signal wire 628 (e.g., distal portion of wire connected to electric component 324) is located in the “rear” as seem in annotated FIG. 3, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
455
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Coleman discloses the guide wire according to claim 1, comprising a resin filled in the inner side of the coil portion ([0024] “…the electronic component 324 is to be glued or otherwise affixed to the core wire 110…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of US 20140180028 A1 to Burkett.
Goel discloses the guide wire according to claim 4 as set forth and cited above, and further discloses wherein the wiring is a conductive wire, the sound source is connected to a distal end of the conductive wire ([0025] “As shown in Figs. 5-6, at least one signal wire 628 (two shown) may be provided for carrying communication and/or power signals to and/or from the electronic component 324. Each signal wire 628 has a distal signal wire portion electrically coupled with the electronic component 324, and a proximal signal wire portion 530 located adjacent the proximal core wire end 112.”).
Goel does not expressly disclose where the sound source is a vibration element. However, Burkett teaches a guidewire with a core member and a coil segment (Abstract). Burkett teaches that at the distal portion of the guidewire there may be a sensor and/or transducer, where the transducer may include an ultrasound transducer ([0009] discloses the ultrasound transducer and it is known in the art that ultrasound transducers use vibrations to convert electrical energy into mechanical vibrations) (also see [0030] and [0046]). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the sound source (e.g., electrical component 324) of Goel to be the ultrasound transducer of Burkett as Goel discloses at [0023] that the electronic component 324 can be any type of an electronic component, including a sensor and/or transducer and Burkett teaches at [0009] a transducer that would have improved diagnostic accuracy.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of EP 1,603,624 B1 to Voeller et al. (hereinafter, Voeller).
Coleman discloses the guide wire according to claim 1 except for expressly disclosing wherein a gap between the element wires in the open portion is 0.13 mm or more and 0.33 mm or less. However, Voeller teaches a core (14/16) surrounded by a coil (80), where the coil can have a pitch in the range of 12.7 µm (0.0127mm) or more and 1270 µm or less (1.27mm) ([0082]) (also see [0079]). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to have formed the gap between element wires in the open portion be in the range of 12.7 µm to 1270 µm, which encompasses the range of 0.13 mm to 0.33 mm, as Voeller teaches at [0079] that the pitch is free to vary along its length and can be varied to allow for desired flexibility characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791